American unreliability in the Gulf is rooted in our ignorance of the history detailed in this article. Our intolerance for short-term loss (higher gas prices/ inflation) drives the countervailing narrative that this war serves only Trump’s ambitions. This drives the conviction that the mid-terms will be a blood bath. Here’s to hoping that Americans can build the institutional memory to see through the fog of this war, and stay the course.
I'm an ex-muslim in Pakistan desperately hoping the American public supports President Trump through this.
There's one more aspect Zineb Riboua misses; Iran is the first majority ex-muslim country in 1400 years. If Iran turns from terror state to democratic secular ally to the west... that's not just a benefit for the US and Israel... that's the start of great social change in the muslim world. That secularization will spread, I promise you.
(side note, I wrote this in reply to you Mr. Rafay but I accidentally posted as general comment, not here, so reposted correctly so you'll get noticed) -
thanks for sharing -- as a DJT supporter I share the concerns of you and the prior note by CK, that many of his supporters aren't seeing the wisdom here, that this effort by US/DJT (and I include his team, obviously, they have done many things domestically that have been necessary for generations to save our country's values and hopefully shift our future back to solid ground) is a long game as you allude -- but the media (and the other institutions in the main, eg educational, corporate, church even social) are captured, and refuse to entertain ideas that support DJT, the stigma around him is so toxic it has infected most everything such that those institutions won't allow for your points; which means we here can't get reporting of the on the ground actual results of the battle -- and thus the narrative for many/most is Iran will win this and the US/DJT effort is doomed, thus affirming how he/they are inept, etc. -- where can we go here in US for reporting of the actual state of Iran and whether the current leadership there will be replaced, how can we track that here? b/c our press won't report on it.
As a resident of Pakistan, you must be somewhat familiar with how religious leaderships function in places like Iran. Can you speak to the likelihood of the Iranian populace overthrowing the Islamic leadership? Media descriptions vary widely and it is difficult to get a real explanation of the relationship between the Iranian government and the people. Does the populace have any real chance of overthrowing the government without outside help? Does the US need to conduct a massive invasion to bring regime change or can the US just destabilize it and let the people do the rest? Is this really a likely outcome? This is the critical question and I have not heard a convincing answer either way.
I have relatives and friends in Iran. But if you don't want anecdotes, look at GAMAAN which in 2023 recorded 80% of the population wanting an end to Islamic regime. However, the problem is... the unarmed crowds of people CANNOT go against determined tanks, APCs, artillery, snipers and infantry. Especially when the mullahs and IRGC control up to 80% of Iran's economy, including all hospitals. The protestors tried many times and in just January, got slaughtered with 32k killed. They're hoping on an extremely low likelihood scenario of some military defecting to the people's side after US war. But if that doesn't happen (and it may not), they're doomed. They NEED a US invasion. AND IRANIANS WOULD GO HOARSE SHOUTING THIS IF THEY COULD; THEY ARE NOT LIKE IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN. A future free Iran would be secular, democratic, because these are values already desperately wanted by the people. It would be more like Germany, Japan, South Korea... a permanent ally of the west in the middle east! A 80 years later, you look at the sacrifices for occupying Germany and Japan as good decisions! Iran will be like that in less than 80 years!
Thank you for that update. I talked with a guy from Iran a number of years ago and he said about the same thing. Let me ask another question that I think could provide a moral justification for US involvement.
Our CIA was deeply involved with the overthrow of Mosaddegh. I don't know if he was a good leader or not but the US did meddle in that country's affairs and it ruined a possible trust between us and them. Propping up the Shah continued that resentment and led to the revolution and the current leadership. That is the extent of my limited understanding of Iran - US relationship, perhaps you could add to it.
So, would it be fair to say that the US owes the people of Iran a chance to overthrow an unwanted government that the US helped (indirectly) put in power? I can go with that. I hate the idea that we helped put Iran into tyranny and if so, then we owe them. The risk would be throwing the country into chaos leading to years of factional fighting and destruction like what happened in Iraq after we removed Hussein. Could the US be successful in Iran instead of failing as we did in Iraq? Who would be the new leader? The son of the Shah? I am not certain we could get that involved without making things worse. We don't have a great track record.
As a side-issue (at least for the moment), whither Gaza? My assumption is that once the fighting ends, the GCC will be much more interested in reconstituting their own countries than pouring additional billions into any Hamas controlled area. Israel could essentially annex the c50% that it currently occupies with relatively little blowback. More important is the strategy of Saudi Arabia-how far will they move towards normalisation with Israel?
Yes. Iran truly is the author of its own isolation. If the regime somehow remains in place after the severe pounding it is receiving, even in greatly diminished form, then enduring Arab-Israeli security cooperation under U.S. leadership will be likely. But should the regime fall, as hoped, the value of this cooperation would diminish given the absence of the unifying threat that motivated it in the first place.
We could hypothesize about the kinds of regional security arrangements that might be constructed following the regime's demise, but the price for full Gulf Arab participation in Abraham Accords 2.0 likely will include some dispensation for Palestinian autonomy. It's hard to imagine Riyadh budging on its long stated interest in a two-state answer to the Palestinian question.
And of course, neo-Ottoman Turkey likely sees an irresistible opportunity to transform its considerable regional influence into a position of true regional leadership or to frustrate competing plans if it cannot.
Next comes the role of outside powers -- the U.S., Russia, and China -- and what regional schemes they might advance in concert or in opposition with regional players. The U.S. is committed to the Abraham Accords, Russia is bogged down in the Ukraine War, and China is being acted upon by events beyond its control.
In the meantime, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed to maritime transit. Whether the U.S. and its allies can reopen it is the immediate issue upon which the bigger issue of who gets to construct the new regional order rests.
"The question before Washington is whether it will recognize the opening for the most consequential strategic consolidation the region has seen in a generation."
It's bigger than that. It will be the most consequential defeat for America for more than a generation and will have incalculable consequences.
No mention of the Palestinians who have been denied a right to self determination much less a right to life. It seems ethnic cleansing and genocide do have a price. Saudi Arabia has clearly stated that without a resolution of a Palestinian state it is not interested in closer ties.
thanks for sharing -- as a DJT supporter I share the concerns of you and the prior note by CK, that many of his supporters aren't seeing the wisdom here, that this effort by US/DJT (and I include his team, obviously, they have done many things domestically that have been necessary for generations to save our country's values and hopefully shift our future back to solid ground) is a long game as you allude -- but the media (and the other institutions in the main, eg educational, corporate, church even social) are captured, and refuse to entertain ideas that support DJT, the stigma around him is so toxic it has infected most everything such that those institutions won't allow for your points; which means we here can't get reporting of the on the ground actual results of the battle -- and thus the narrative for many/most is Iran will win this and the US/DJT effort is doomed, thus affirming how he/they are inept, etc. -- where can we go here in US for reporting of the actual state of Iran and whether the current leadership there will be replaced, how can we track that here? b/c our press won't report on it.
Unless the regime survives and uses its control over the strait of Hormuz along with a reconstituted nuclear threat to force its will on the Gulf states.
American unreliability in the Gulf is rooted in our ignorance of the history detailed in this article. Our intolerance for short-term loss (higher gas prices/ inflation) drives the countervailing narrative that this war serves only Trump’s ambitions. This drives the conviction that the mid-terms will be a blood bath. Here’s to hoping that Americans can build the institutional memory to see through the fog of this war, and stay the course.
I'm an ex-muslim in Pakistan desperately hoping the American public supports President Trump through this.
There's one more aspect Zineb Riboua misses; Iran is the first majority ex-muslim country in 1400 years. If Iran turns from terror state to democratic secular ally to the west... that's not just a benefit for the US and Israel... that's the start of great social change in the muslim world. That secularization will spread, I promise you.
(side note, I wrote this in reply to you Mr. Rafay but I accidentally posted as general comment, not here, so reposted correctly so you'll get noticed) -
thanks for sharing -- as a DJT supporter I share the concerns of you and the prior note by CK, that many of his supporters aren't seeing the wisdom here, that this effort by US/DJT (and I include his team, obviously, they have done many things domestically that have been necessary for generations to save our country's values and hopefully shift our future back to solid ground) is a long game as you allude -- but the media (and the other institutions in the main, eg educational, corporate, church even social) are captured, and refuse to entertain ideas that support DJT, the stigma around him is so toxic it has infected most everything such that those institutions won't allow for your points; which means we here can't get reporting of the on the ground actual results of the battle -- and thus the narrative for many/most is Iran will win this and the US/DJT effort is doomed, thus affirming how he/they are inept, etc. -- where can we go here in US for reporting of the actual state of Iran and whether the current leadership there will be replaced, how can we track that here? b/c our press won't report on it.
As a resident of Pakistan, you must be somewhat familiar with how religious leaderships function in places like Iran. Can you speak to the likelihood of the Iranian populace overthrowing the Islamic leadership? Media descriptions vary widely and it is difficult to get a real explanation of the relationship between the Iranian government and the people. Does the populace have any real chance of overthrowing the government without outside help? Does the US need to conduct a massive invasion to bring regime change or can the US just destabilize it and let the people do the rest? Is this really a likely outcome? This is the critical question and I have not heard a convincing answer either way.
I have relatives and friends in Iran. But if you don't want anecdotes, look at GAMAAN which in 2023 recorded 80% of the population wanting an end to Islamic regime. However, the problem is... the unarmed crowds of people CANNOT go against determined tanks, APCs, artillery, snipers and infantry. Especially when the mullahs and IRGC control up to 80% of Iran's economy, including all hospitals. The protestors tried many times and in just January, got slaughtered with 32k killed. They're hoping on an extremely low likelihood scenario of some military defecting to the people's side after US war. But if that doesn't happen (and it may not), they're doomed. They NEED a US invasion. AND IRANIANS WOULD GO HOARSE SHOUTING THIS IF THEY COULD; THEY ARE NOT LIKE IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN. A future free Iran would be secular, democratic, because these are values already desperately wanted by the people. It would be more like Germany, Japan, South Korea... a permanent ally of the west in the middle east! A 80 years later, you look at the sacrifices for occupying Germany and Japan as good decisions! Iran will be like that in less than 80 years!
Thank you for that update. I talked with a guy from Iran a number of years ago and he said about the same thing. Let me ask another question that I think could provide a moral justification for US involvement.
Our CIA was deeply involved with the overthrow of Mosaddegh. I don't know if he was a good leader or not but the US did meddle in that country's affairs and it ruined a possible trust between us and them. Propping up the Shah continued that resentment and led to the revolution and the current leadership. That is the extent of my limited understanding of Iran - US relationship, perhaps you could add to it.
So, would it be fair to say that the US owes the people of Iran a chance to overthrow an unwanted government that the US helped (indirectly) put in power? I can go with that. I hate the idea that we helped put Iran into tyranny and if so, then we owe them. The risk would be throwing the country into chaos leading to years of factional fighting and destruction like what happened in Iraq after we removed Hussein. Could the US be successful in Iran instead of failing as we did in Iraq? Who would be the new leader? The son of the Shah? I am not certain we could get that involved without making things worse. We don't have a great track record.
80+% of voters would like voter ID but we’re not gonna get it. What gubmint wants gubmint gets, screw the people.
As a side-issue (at least for the moment), whither Gaza? My assumption is that once the fighting ends, the GCC will be much more interested in reconstituting their own countries than pouring additional billions into any Hamas controlled area. Israel could essentially annex the c50% that it currently occupies with relatively little blowback. More important is the strategy of Saudi Arabia-how far will they move towards normalisation with Israel?
2.0 far hopefully
I grow more and more convinced that somebody hacked your profile and typed “beyond the ideological” just for fun.
Your points are reasonable and worth debating, but the side you root for is becoming ever more obvious.
Yes. Iran truly is the author of its own isolation. If the regime somehow remains in place after the severe pounding it is receiving, even in greatly diminished form, then enduring Arab-Israeli security cooperation under U.S. leadership will be likely. But should the regime fall, as hoped, the value of this cooperation would diminish given the absence of the unifying threat that motivated it in the first place.
We could hypothesize about the kinds of regional security arrangements that might be constructed following the regime's demise, but the price for full Gulf Arab participation in Abraham Accords 2.0 likely will include some dispensation for Palestinian autonomy. It's hard to imagine Riyadh budging on its long stated interest in a two-state answer to the Palestinian question.
And of course, neo-Ottoman Turkey likely sees an irresistible opportunity to transform its considerable regional influence into a position of true regional leadership or to frustrate competing plans if it cannot.
Next comes the role of outside powers -- the U.S., Russia, and China -- and what regional schemes they might advance in concert or in opposition with regional players. The U.S. is committed to the Abraham Accords, Russia is bogged down in the Ukraine War, and China is being acted upon by events beyond its control.
In the meantime, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed to maritime transit. Whether the U.S. and its allies can reopen it is the immediate issue upon which the bigger issue of who gets to construct the new regional order rests.
"The question before Washington is whether it will recognize the opening for the most consequential strategic consolidation the region has seen in a generation."
It's bigger than that. It will be the most consequential defeat for America for more than a generation and will have incalculable consequences.
US presence in the Middle East is once a for all liquidated. And its not coming back. But hey, Winning!🫵🏻🍊
No mention of the Palestinians who have been denied a right to self determination much less a right to life. It seems ethnic cleansing and genocide do have a price. Saudi Arabia has clearly stated that without a resolution of a Palestinian state it is not interested in closer ties.
There’s a reason no mention. The region is sick of them.
thanks for sharing -- as a DJT supporter I share the concerns of you and the prior note by CK, that many of his supporters aren't seeing the wisdom here, that this effort by US/DJT (and I include his team, obviously, they have done many things domestically that have been necessary for generations to save our country's values and hopefully shift our future back to solid ground) is a long game as you allude -- but the media (and the other institutions in the main, eg educational, corporate, church even social) are captured, and refuse to entertain ideas that support DJT, the stigma around him is so toxic it has infected most everything such that those institutions won't allow for your points; which means we here can't get reporting of the on the ground actual results of the battle -- and thus the narrative for many/most is Iran will win this and the US/DJT effort is doomed, thus affirming how he/they are inept, etc. -- where can we go here in US for reporting of the actual state of Iran and whether the current leadership there will be replaced, how can we track that here? b/c our press won't report on it.
Optimistic, but plausible, if the conflict stabilises. Right now, we are still closer to systemic stress than consolidation.
Great if true.
Unless the regime survives and uses its control over the strait of Hormuz along with a reconstituted nuclear threat to force its will on the Gulf states.
The vast majority you speak of are mindless morons.